brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Best movie of this year hands down!

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Much as I admire the Miss Marple setting, this particular episode makes no sense unless it is assumed that in the 1950's (1) British policemen were totally incompetent, (2) elderly ladies moved very quickly, had no problems strangling people much taller and stronger than themselves, and were virtuoso marksmen in dark crowded rooms, and (3) murderers preferred complicated plots, involving may accidental elements, over direct action. As a result of (1), the victim is believed to have killed himself with a rare body shot, with a pistol that may or may not be the colonel's (why his wife lies about it we'll never know) and which is bound to carry the murderer's fingerprints and not his own. None of this is investigated. Quite understandably, the police sergeant started a second life as Morse's assistant, assuming the name of 'Lewis'.

In the small village of Chipping Cleghorne, the local paper carries a small notice that a murder will be committed that very day at Little Paddocks cottage at 7pm. The residents of the cottage know nothing about it but decide to put on some drinks in case the joker, or anyone else, pops in. Several people do just happen to be "passing by" and pop in shortly before seven. At exactly 7pm a masked man comes in the door shining a torch in everyone's face and saying words along the lines of "hands up" or "this is a robbery". The lights go out and three shots are heard; when they come back on there are bullet holes in the wall, Miss Blacklock has a cut on her ear and the man is dead. Despite it not making any sense at all, it appears to DI Craddock that for some reason the man was trying to kill Miss Blacklock and, when he failed, killed himself. It is all very confusing but when Craddock is advised to speak to a certain Miss Marple, who has some quite helpful insights into the whole affair.Although it runs very long, this entry in the BBC Miss Marple series of films is actually pretty enjoyable and wasn't anything like the long slog I worried it would be. It helps that the plot keeps moving forward well with what seems like a lightening pace in comparison to some of the other Miss Marple films from the same series. As others have commented, the plot may not be the strongest that Christie ever produced but it does provide enough forward motion to keep the film interesting. The conclusion involves loads of revelations that I wasn't overly pleased by because it seemed to just take all the patient investigation done up till then and just p1ss it all up the wall. It is a pain because up till then I had enjoyed the 140 minutes prior but the "out-of-the-blue" stuff meant that I was just being spun a yarn for a while. I still enjoyed it in the delivery but this was a problem.The cast are mostly good. Hickson is the classic Miss Marple and her performance here is as assured as always and she is a good presence. The film doesn't really bring in her until the end of the first hour and it is to the credit of the rest of the cast that I didn't miss her that much. Castle is as reliable as Craddock and it was a strange find to have Whately as his DS (Whately being better known as Morse's Lewis). Howells, Asherson, Sims and others are all very good and I personally was quite taken aback by Samantha Bond – not so much by her performance but more by the fact that she only looks slightly older twenty years later.Overall this is quite a good Miss Marple that has a strong plot and a consistently well-paced delivery. The cast are all up to the task and it feels quite brisk and engaging up till the end when all the rabbits are pulled out of hats and I struggled to keep up with it or indeed work out why I should given that the final scenes seemed to be separate from the rest of the film. Still enjoyable but 160 minutes is a long time to stick with something and then feel a bit cheated at the end.

Spoilers herein.Christie is all about the game, the game for control over an abstract field where the narrator lives, the person that creates the world. Within this, she often places people who are doing the same. These are people who are bending the world around them, wresting with truth as it turns out.The BBC is about something altogether. No challenge, just simple, digestible pleasures in the form of interesting faces and places. They have a habit of swapping the creative team so that so that none of these Marple mysteries has the same director or adapter. The result is that though apparently similar, they are in fact amazingly diverse, almost a lesson in elementary filmmaking.Christie's device here is also her clue. That's the way she often worked. Here, it is a matter of the definition of sisterhood. We have the two rough lesbians, and (apparently) the two subliminal ones. We have the twin sisters separated at birth and the sisters whose revelation is the crux. We even have twin lamps and twin romances.(As with most of her books, we have a writer in the action.)Christie plus BBC in this case means exaggeration of the characters so that they are no longer possible schemers, instead obvious fictions. Quite apart from Christie's carefully woven plot, we know who the villain is because she is the only one not portrayed ridiculously.These should never have been made. The intent of the BBC is just too far from Christie's.But. But, dear reader, there is a performance so charming it rivets. Samantha Bond isn't a great actress, but she does understand what is going on in this BBC/Christie clash. She places herself where Christie would be: both participant and commenting observer at the same time. For some interesting reason, hidden in film history, redheads can do this with more ease on the screen. I'm digging into this.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I'm a fan of the genre. I have the aforementioned rewind button. I loved the show.I didn't find it too implausible, considering that this did take place in the 1950s (no faxes, e-mail or digital cameras), and I thought it possible and plausible that the people in question could assume someone else's identity, especially as their performances were being given for the benefit of people who hadn't seen the "original identity holders" in many years, if at all.Hints at Hinchcliffe's and Murgatroyd's lesbian "partnership," without ever coming directly across and labeling it (although it does more broadly hint at the relationship than Agatha Christie's original novel). Issues of youthful Communism and unrequited love are almost too felicitously handled, although one wishes that real life could be this uncomplicated!Watch for a spunky performance from Samantha Bond (now universally recognized as Miss Moneypenny in the 007 series). Paola Dionisotti (The House of Elliott) is also greatly likable as Miss Hinchcliffe.